Incluing

An aspect of incluing is that it spurs thought and conversation outside of the work. Take a (well done) movie for instance - back in 1M BC when I was single, I enjoyed taking dates to movies with plots that could be discussed over coffee afterward. In book form, incluing allows the work to linger in the reader's mind, and I think that's a very good thing.

Laer Carroll said:

"Incluing" means embedding clues like chocolate chips in cookies in the narrative. They can be of character, setting, or plot - the three legs of every story.

Click to expand...

I'm with you so far. ..

They encourage readers to come up with their own details of character/setting/plot rather than take the writer's version.

Click to expand...

But now I'm lost. Isn't the purpose of dropping clues to, well, clue the readers in? And not leave them groping for explanations? From what you said at first, incluing sound like a form of subtext, a way of showing information rather than coming out with an explanation. The clues are there for the reader to pick up on and therefore gain a greater understanding of story and character. But apparently not?

Examples would really help.

I think Laer means stuff like, casual references to other jobs, politicals groups, people, old boyfriends and girlfriends, past experiences. Relying reader meta-knowledge to fill in the facts.

It's a way of avoiding cliches--by incorporating them to create shortcuts. It also adds an illusion of depth, the way scenery does to a play, so that your character feels like they have a context rather than existing (as they actually do) within the four blank walls (metaphorically speaking) of your story.

So isn't it just a fancy name being applied to what one would do anyway?

I would have said so, but humans like to have names for things.

Harlequin said:

I would have said so, but humans like to have names for things.

Click to expand...

I can't say I'd heard the term before, and it doesn't do any harm to be reminded of what we perhaps overlook. I see it was raised in the Sci-Fi Fantasy Forum (where I went to read it) and it would seem to have relevance in most stories.

Harlequin said:

I think Laer means stuff like, casual references to other jobs, politicals groups, people, old boyfriends and girlfriends, past experiences. Relying reader meta-knowledge to fill in the facts.

It's a way of avoiding cliches--by incorporating them to create shortcuts. It also adds an illusion of depth, the way scenery does to a play, so that your character feels like they have a context rather than existing (as they actually do) within the four blank walls (metaphorically speaking) of your story.

Click to expand...

But why would a reader have meta-knowledge about a character's prior relationships, jobs, experiences, etc., unless those had already been mentioned in the story? Or is it the very mention of them that's meant to be the "inclue"? And the reader is therefore intended to imaginatively weave more material around the clue than is actually there in the text, thereby enriching the character's world but only from the perspective of the reader? The thing is, I can see all that come crashing down if the author later reveals more information that contradicts the reader's fervid little fantasies.

Clearly I'm not getting this. Or looking at it the wrong way. Or something.

- - - Updated - - -

Bufty said:

I see it was raised in the Sci-Fi Fantasy Forum (where I went to read it) and it would seem to have relevance in most stories.

Click to expand...

I'm headed that way now.

Aaaannnd now I'm back. What's the title of thread where this is being discussed?

Sorry, by meta knowledge I mean things like, we all know Romeo and Juliet to death. Mentioning "star crossed lovers" in reference to a character is sufficient to convey a whole wealth of cultural meaning without rehashing the story in detail.

Don't know if that's what she meant by it though.

zanzjan said:

My comment about incluing (which I spelled wrong) that Laer referenced is here, fwiw.

It's less about letting readers form their own details (which they will regardless) and more about giving enough story breadcrumbs that the reader can build up a necessary picture of the background worldbuilding/character history/technical deets etc. in a holistic way without interrupting the narrative flow, instead of pausing for an infodump. [...]

I'm sure someone can explain it better.

Click to expand...

Thank you, that was just fine. It's clearly a term for something we already know to do: interweave these details of backstory and worldbuilding rather than presenting them as dry, indigestible chunks.

Well, plotting is also something all writers do or should do, but it is useful to have a term I think. A shortcut when describing problems or techniques.

As I understand it, "incluing" is not dependent on reader metaknowledge and doesn't require the reader to fill in narrative gaps with outside information -- it's simply a technique to avoid info-dumps needed by a story (world-building, character history, tech, etc) by weaving small pieces of information into the flow of the narrative so that by the time it's important in the story for a reader to understand something, the reader already has all the information they need and has probably put it together in a pretty complete understanding of what's going on.

They encourage readers to come up with their own details of character/setting/plot rather than take the writer's version.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily -- when incluing is done well, the picture the reader has constructed is going to be pretty much exactly what the writer meant it to be because it's based on the information the writer put there for the reader to use. It's JUST LIKE an info-dump, see, except it's spread out and more transparent to readers. (And since the reader does their own assembly, consciously or otherwise, they're more invested in it, not just passive audience.)

It's a technique that's been used for a long time. Jo Walton just gave it a name so we can talk about it. Clever, that!

Harlequin said:

Well, plotting is also something all writers do or should do, but it is useful to have a term I think. A shortcut when describing problems or techniques.

Click to expand...

The term is fine. It was the definition I was trying to nail down.

How is incluing different to foreshadowing? (Which I might have spelled wrong.)

I think it doesn't just refer to future events, as it would also include worldbuilding and character depth/history.

Old Hack said:

How is incluing different to foreshadowing? (Which I might have spelled wrong.)

Click to expand...

Incluing is not related to foreshadowing. It's merely an alternative narrative technique to info-dumping.

Old Hack said:

How is incluing different to foreshadowing? (Which I might have spelled wrong.)

Click to expand...

Have you ever read any of China Mievelle's Bas-Lang novels? If so, I'd feel those would make a very good example. There are lots of details that in the narrative -events, places, people, things- that are not plot relevant or followed up on, but their inclusion serves to make the setting feel like a much more complex, cohesive whole. Context implies what meaning their supposed to have to the reader, but since the details are not explicitly spelled out, there's ambiguity.

Think of any time something in fiction can become a multi-page thread with different people interpreting events or actions because of details left ambiguous.

I don't agree with Laer's claim that this would effect the length of a narrative.

Seems like every good book and every good author I've ever read does this.

I probably misunderstand, but if not, that's kind of what I like to read.

It reminds me of my favorite author, Michael Crichton, who wrote Jurassic Park. He doesn't use too many details in his writing. There's no paragraph dedicated to describing the look of a tree, or the layout of the control room. He uses simple descriptions, and allows us to imagine the rest. And I love it.

Mostly because I don't believe it lends to a short book. His books are pretty long. But they're filled with cool scientific ideas, and room for tension and plot to progress. He puts me on a ride and controls it himself. I feel other authors flip this around (like King), where there's so many words dedicated to the detail of the scene, that we're forced to see what he sees, while the pacing of his plot suffers.

yeah as Laer says, it's very useful for problem solving.

I also find it useful to know when beta reading, to comment on if a problem is reoccurring. Explain once and then use term to highlight from there on out.

benbenberi said:

Incluing is not related to foreshadowing. It's merely an alternative narrative technique to info-dumping.

Click to expand...

That's the way Jo Walton explained it to me.